Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India on 24 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010282752025
2026:GAU-AS:2768
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./4113/2025
ABDUL KALAM
S/O APTAB UDDIN
R/O VILL- KANAKPUR
P.O. KAYASTHA GRAM
P.S. NILAM BAZAR
DIST. SRIBHUMI (KARIMGANJ) ASSAM, PIN-788719
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY SC, NCB, GUWAHATI ZONE.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K TALUKDAR, M RAHOMAN,MR SHAHIN YUSUF
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Date of Hearing : 20.02.2026
Date of Judgment: 24.02.2026
Heard A. K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant
and Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing
Page No.# 2/6
for NCB.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail
to the accused applicant namely, Abdul Kalam, who was arrested on
14.07.2025, in connection with NCB Guwahati Zonal Unit, Crime No. 09/2025
under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The gist of the prosecution’s case is that on 13.07.2025 at about 17:00
hours, Shri Pankaj Kumar Chouhan, Inspector, NCB, Guwahati, received a secret
information that between 23:00 hours of 13.07.2025 and 02:00 hours of
14.07.2025, three persons, namely (1) Md. Murad, (2) Sayed Musa, and (3) Md.
Yakub Ali, all residents of Sangaiyumpham under P.S. Thoubal, Manipur, would
be trafficking approximately 10 kgs. of Methamphetamine tablets in a Mahindra
XUV bearing registration No. AS 01 EX 5075 coming from Jagiroad side towards
Guwahati. Pursuant thereto, on 14.07.2025, the NCB team intercepted the said
vehicle at Nazirakhat Toll Plaza and apprehended the aforesaid three persons. It
was alleged that, upon interrogation, the said persons admitted to trafficking
Methamphetamine tablets concealed in specially fabricated cavities of the
vehicle. However, unable to locate exact place of hiding the aforesaid
contraband tablets in the vehicle, the vehicle was taken to a nearby workshop in
the VIP Road, namely, Khushi Motor Works. Thereafter, at about 1:30 AM, the
NCB team conducted a further search in the vehicle with the help of the
mechanics and recovered 50 packets of Methamphetamine tablets weighing
10.858 kg from concealed cavities in the chassis of the vehicle. Consequently,
NCB, GZU Crime No. 09/2025 was registered.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid seizure, an investigation was initiated by the
NCB, Guwahati Zonal Unit, in Crime No. 09/2025 and the three aforementioned
persons were taken into custody. Subsequently, the present accused applicant
Page No.# 3/6
was also arrested on 14.07.2025 and has since been languishing in judicial
custody in connection with the said case. Formal Complaint in the case was
submitted before the learned Sessions (SPL) Judge, Kamrup (Metro) and the
same is registered as NDPS Case No. 12 of 2026.
5. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the accused applicant, submits that the
accused applicant had been staying at a hotel since 13.07.2025 when he
received a phone call from NCB officials asking him to appear before the NCB
office. In compliance, he appeared and was arrested. He contends that the
implication of the accused applicant is solely based on the disclosure statements
of co-accused persons and a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act, which have weak evidentiary value in view of the law laid down in Tofan
Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. Learned counsel
further submits that the accused applicant had come to Guwahati for medical
purposes and for personal work relating to the purchase of a laptop and tools
for his son’s proposed business, and had agreed to accompany co-accused
Yakub Ali for his medical consultation as Yakub Ali told him that he did not know
Assamese. He submitted that the Accused Applicant knew Yakub Ali as he is
from his Father-in-law’s village. He submits that the Accused Applicant had no
knowledge of any alleged trafficking. It is also contended that no documentary
evidence of any alleged monetary transaction has been produced against him.
6. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel, submits that the accused applicant has a
limited educational background and does not properly understand Hindi or
English; yet his signatures were obtained on documents whose contents were
not explained to him in a language known to him. He submits that there is also
violation of mandatory provisions of section 36 and section 48 of the BNSS as
the Arrest Memo does not contain any signature of any witness or any of his
Page No.# 4/6
family members. He submits that Section 48 of BNSS Notice was not served on
any of his family members at the time of his arrest though the same was served
on his family members on a later date in his village in Manipur. He submits that
while arresting the accused applicant, the authorities did not comply with the
mandatory provisions of Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023. He submits that
though a notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 dated 14.07.2025 was sent
to the family members of the accused applicant, there are no signatures of the
family members acknowledging receipt. Therefore, he submits that there is an
apparent violation of the statutory provisions of Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS,
2023. He further argues that since the personal liberty of the accused applicant
has been curtailed and there has been a violation of his rights under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India, the accused applicant should be released on
bail, as his arrest is illegal.
7. On the other hand, Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India appearing for the NCB, submits that the accused applicant was
arrested on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused, namely
Yakub Ali and other prima facie materials against him. He further submits that
there are no violations of the notices under Sections 36 and 48 BNSS.
Therefore, he opposes the prayer for bail made by the accused applicant.
8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and has also perused the TCR that has been
placed before the Court.
9. In this connection, Section 36 of the BNSS being relevant the same is
quoted herein below:-
“36. Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest- Every
police officer while making an arrest shall-
Page No.# 5/6
(a) Bear and accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will
facilitate easy identification;
(b) Prepare a Memorandum of Arrest which shall be-
(i) Attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the
arrested person or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest
is made;
(ii) Counter signed by the person arrested; and
(c) Informed the person arrested, unless the Memorandum is attested by a
member of his family, that he has a right to have a relative or a friend or any
other person named by him to be informed of his arrest.
10. This Court has perused the Arrest Memo under section 36 of the BNSS
which is available in the TCR which clearly reveals that Grounds of Arrest have
been detailed there in the Arrest Memo. It is also seen that signature of an
independent witness is present in the Notice, which appears to be “A Mustafa”,
signed on the same date, i.e., 14.07.2025. In all the Documents including the
Section 47 Notice, it is seen that the Accused Applicant had signed in English
which shows that he is conversant with English Language. It is also seen that at
the time of arrest, the wife of the Accused Applicant, namely Suraya Begum was
intimated about his arrest over the telephone in her Mobile Phone No.
7636832173 by the Accused Applicant as she is a resident of a village in
Manipur. It is also seen that a document to that effect was prepared which
mentioned that Grounds of Arrest of the Accused Applicant were explained by
him to his wife and the contents were admitted by the Accused Applicant by
putting his signature on that. The receipt of the Written Notice containing
details of Grounds of Arrest under Section 48 BNSS on a later date, though not
at the time of his arrest, was also admitted by the learned counsel for the
Page No.# 6/6
Applicant Accused. Therefore, no pre-judice seems to have caused to the
Accused Applicant at the time of his arrest. Since none of the family members or
friends reside in Guwahati and all being residents in Manipur and taking into
account the prevailing law and order situation in Manipur at that point of time,
an admitted telephonic intimation and subsequent service of written notice
under section 48 of BNSS, which has been specifically admitted by the learned
Counsel for the Accused Applicant, cannot be termed as non-compliance of
Section 48 of BNSS.
11. It is further seen that allegation of payment of Rs. 20 lakhs by one Nazim
Uddin, an accomplice of the Accused Applicant to one Jaheda, the alleged
supplier of the aforesaid seized contraband Yaba tablets. It is seen that the
Mobile Phone No of Jaheda, i.e. 9707776069 was given to the NCB officials by
the Accused Applicant himself. Therefore, at this stage, the involvement of the
Accused Applicant in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out. The case of
Toofan Singh (Supra) relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the
Accused Applicant is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
12. In view of the aforesaid prima facie findings, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the Accused Applicant’s prayer for bail does not have any merit and
hence, the same is rejected at this stage.
13. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands disposed of as rejected.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
